[colliric]

Because she is selfishly wrecking any chance of 2020 being any better for the Democrats in order to make a few more bucks out of what was a very lucrative election for the Clintons. Which is the reason most of us Trump fans are laughing the hardest.... She's doing exactly what we want her to do. Hanging around like a bad smell, and not in a good Richard Nixon "im still young, be back as a good candidate later" way(he was inexperienced in '60 and JFK wasn't, second Nixon run was masterful).

The more Hillary talks, the more she screws her own political party by dragging it back to the stone age.

We have 7 great Trump years ahead of us.

[mikema63]

The idea that she's going to effect anything in 2018 is funny enough, but her book effecting 2020 is just laughable.

But what level of political comprehension can you really expect from "trump fans".

[skinster]

[colliric]

The idea that she's going to effect anything in 2018 is funny enough, but her book effecting 2020 is just laughable.

But what level of political comprehension can you really expect from "trump fans".

It's not the book. It's her.

It's blatantly obvious she won't shut up and be a good sport and let the party move on. She'll be vocal during the build up to Election 2020 and will probably endorse a candidate, etc.

Bill will too, but at he's a former president and has that excuse.

[mikema63]

@skinster what?

@colliric I can see how that would make sense to someone with no sense of scale, perspective, or American politics. Who is also kind of out of it and thinks trump is the best.

[skinster]

[Pants-of-dog]

People love hating Hillary Clinton.

For progressives, I can understand why, but for a lot of people it seems like they hate Clinton for supposedly doing the same things that every other politician dies, only they do not get crucified like she does.

I assume it has something to do with her being a woman.

[Buzz62]

There's always the book "Crisis of Character"?

[Heisenberg]

I think it has more to do with the fact that the Clintons' political careers are so transparently about their personal enrichment, rather than about any sort of guiding principles or beliefs. A lot of the dislike of Hillary is derived from dislike of Bill, since they are "in it together", so to speak. If she objected to any of his borderline-psychopathic moves (like the execution of Ricky Ray Rector or "Operation Infinite Reach") she never said or did anything to register that disagreement.

And a lot of it comes from their self-righteousness. Other politicians seem to recognise that criticism (fair and unfair) is part of the job, while the Clintons whine and whine and whine about how horrible it all is. Tony Blair suffers from a similar disease of the ego, failing to see that every one of his pathetic TV appearances takes him down another notch in the national estimation, rather than enhancing his reputation.

(As a couple of examples: George W Bush and Gordon Brown have almost been rehabilitated, since they decided to retire with some grace rather than hanging around like a bad smell, angrily declaring what saints they are. The Blairs and the Clintons would do well to follow their examples)

[Pants-of-dog]

All politicians are in it for personal enrichment. And I think Hillary Clinton is actually more popular because of her husband than the other way around.

But you probably have a point about their self-righteousness.

[mikema63]

I think it has more to do with the fact that the Clintons' political careers are so transparently about their personal enrichment, rather than about any sort of guiding principles or beliefs.

What personal enrichment did Hillary get from pushing the Child insurance program? What did she get out of being completely pilloried for pushing a universal multi-payer healthcare system in 1993? When she worked to reform the foster care system? Or any of the other various projects she's worked on over the years?

This corrosive idea that every politician, and indeed anyone who dissagrees with you or doesn't come off as charismatic, is actually an evil person is ridiculous.

Hillary Clinton is just a person, politicians are just people, they are generally doing the best they can. They are wrong sometimes, even terribly so, but they are no different than anyone else.

And a lot of it comes from their self-righteousness. Other politicians seem to recognise that criticism (fair and unfair) is part of the job, while the Clintons whine and whine and whine about how horrible it all is

This is silly. Let's take this book for example. She spends most of it criticizing her own decisions. Sure in it she says "I take full responsibility for the loss." "I was the candidate. I was the person whose name was on the ballot." and goes at length to point out that she points out the issues in her campaign in the book but she is ultimately responsible for how she dealt with them. Yet people go out of their way to quote sections where she rightly points out that sexism, the medias overemphasis on her email scandals over policies and even trumps scandals, james comey, the white resentment Trump traded on, and a variety of other issues were issues.

But she's just a self-righteous whiner for pointing out things that are perfectly true and any candidate needs to consider in the future.

Ultimatly people see her as whiny for pointing out true things because she is a woman. If Gore points out the electoral college is archaic people simply nod and accept that he's got a point. Hillary does it and she's a shrill whiner that just needs to shut up and go away.

As a couple of examples: George W Bush and Gordon Brown have almost been rehabilitated, since they decided to retire with some grace rather than hanging around like a bad smell, angrily declaring what saints they are. The Blairs and the Clintons would do well to follow their examples

Except they didn't go away. They too wrote books. They too have foundations and charities. They too pop up for speeches from time to time. They too have political organizations to push their beliefs.

Clinton though is different, and it's not because she's doing anything differently than the bushes.

All politicians are in it for personal enrichment.

Just because someone doesn't see the world in the same way you do doesn't mean they are bad people. I have no doubt that the large majority of people who go into politics genuinely want to help people. You may claim they are wrong about how to do it, wrong about what the problems with society are, or constrained by the system. But assuming deliberate malevolence is ridiculous.

[Heisenberg]

What personal enrichment did Hillary get from pushing the Child insurance program? What did she get out of being completely pilloried for pushing a universal multi-payer healthcare system in 1993? When she worked to reform the foster care system? Or any of the other various projects she's worked on over the years?

You're right, the Clintons are real martyrs. The Clinton presidency was entirely selfless, and didn't result in the two of them getting massively wealthy through relationships with all manner of strange foreign donors. My mistake.

This corrosive idea that every politician, and indeed anyone who dissagrees with you or doesn't come off as charismatic, is actually an evil person is ridiculous.

If you could direct me to where I said anything of the sort, I'd be grateful. For starters, I certainly don't think you're evil, even though we plainly disagree on the moral character of the Clintons.

This is silly. Let's take this book for example. She spends most of it criticizing her own decisions. Sure in it she says "I take full responsibility for the loss." "I was the candidate. I was the person whose name was on the ballot." and goes at length to point out that she points out the issues in her campaign in the book but she is ultimately responsible for how she dealt with them. Yet people go out of their way to quote sections where she rightly points out that sexism, the medias overemphasis on her email scandals over policies and even trumps scandals, james comey, the white resentment Trump traded on, and a variety of other issues were issues.

This reminds me of Tony Blair saying he took full responsibility for the Iraq war after the Chilcot Inquiry, and then going on for hours about how he did nothing wrong. To put it mildly, it comes across as a little insincere.

Ultimatly people see her as whiny for pointing out true things because she is a woman.

Yes, of course, which is why I explicitly mentioned those well-known women, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, in my previous post as prime examples of the problem.

Except they didn't go away. They too wrote books. They too have foundations and charities. They too pop up for speeches from time to time. They too have political organizations to push their beliefs.

Clinton though is different, and it's not because she's doing anything differently than the bushes.

I don't believe that George W Bush endlessly rehashes how all criticism of him is oh-so-unfair, at every possible opportunity. Perhaps you're right, and I've missed all the self-pitying interviews, but I suspect not.

Similarly, Gordon Brown's post-parliamentary behaviour has been exemplary, even though he was subject to incredibly vicious, personal attacks during his time as PM.

At some point, you have to ask whether the Clintons bring it on themselves, at least to some degree.

[mikema63]

You're right, the Clintons are real martyrs. The Clinton presidency was entirely selfless, and didn't result in the two of them getting massively wealthy through relationships with all manner of strange foreign donors. My mistake.

I didn't claim that. I responded to your idea that they are only in it for themselves by pointing out things they did to help others.

My claim is not that they are saints, my claim is that they are normal people who really did try to help peoples lives. What you've written here is literally a strawman of my point and I'm rather shocked to see you indulge in it.

They got rich, yeah, If I got offered ridiculous amounts of money for an hours speech I would do it too. If I got offered a couple million for a book about me I'd write it. I'm a human being not a saint. This expectation that if Hillary isn't better than everyone else then she is 100% out for herself and doesn't care about anyone else is ridiculous.

If you could direct me to where I said anything of the sort, I'd be grateful. For starters, I certainly don't think you're evil, even though we plainly disagree on the moral character of the Clintons.

You didn't say it outright but it underlies this entire view that Hillary is just totally awful. She's an ambitious woman with a record that contains good and bad, but for you she is reduced only to the bad. It's telling that when I point out good things she did you don't respond by addressing those points. You responded by making some ridiculous statement as if I claimed she were a martyr. She has to either be perfect or evil. Except she's just another human shmuck who is doing their best but fucks up.

This reminds me of Tony Blair saying he took full responsibility for the Iraq war after the Chilcot Inquiry, and then going on for hours about how he did nothing wrong. To put it mildly, it comes across as a little insincere.

Her book is all about blame.

*Points out that a lot of her book blames herself.*

Those are the insincere lying bits. She's only being honest when she says things I don't like.



Maybe instead of looking at people with some sort of dichotomous good/evil attitude where we either forgive them their sins or assume that everything good they say is a lie and everything good they do is part of some scheme we can consider them, I don't know, like we would anyone else?

Yes, of course, which is why I explicitly mentioned those well-known women, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, in my previous post as prime examples of the problem.

That isn't a response to my point, it's a red herring. People can dislike people for lots of reasons. People definitely dislike Hillary because she's an ambitious woman, and the research on this is overwhelming that we see ambitious men positively and ambitious woman overwhelmingly negatively.

I don't believe that George W Bush endlessly rehashes how all criticism of him is oh-so-unfair, at every possible opportunity. Perhaps you're right, and I've missed all the self-pitying interviews, but I suspect not.

Similarly, Gordon Brown's post-parliamentary behaviour has been exemplary, even though he was subject to incredibly vicious, personal attacks during his time as PM.

At some point, you have to ask whether the Clintons bring it on themselves, at least to some degree.

Yes, Hillary totally deserves the ridiculous bloviating about how aweful she is for writing a book pointing out things that hurt her campaign. Including decisions she made (Oh wait those are insincere and we have to ignore them and focus on how the perfectly true things she writes in the book are whiny and shrill.)

[Beren]

Ultimatly people see her as whiny for pointing out true things because she is a woman. If Gore points out the electoral college is archaic people simply nod and accept that he's got a point. Hillary does it and she's a shrill whiner that just needs to shut up and go away.

It may have more to do with personality and history. There is something irritating in HRC that even some women can hardly bear, as well as the presidency was simply stolen from Gore, who should whine about Florida, the media, and the Supreme Court rather than the electoral college.

Except they didn't go away. They too wrote books. They too have foundations and charities. They too pop up for speeches from time to time. They too have political organizations to push their beliefs.

Clinton though is different, and it's not because she's doing anything differently than the bushes.

So the Bushes act like retired politicians basically, whereas HRC remained active after she'd left the White House. Then she ran for the presidency she seems to feel entitled to. I think she actually believes she was born and raised to be the first female POTUS and it's historic injustice that she's never been that.

[Heisenberg]

I didn't claim that. I responded to your idea that they are only in it for themselves by pointing out things they did to help others.

My claim is not that they are saints, my claim is that they are normal people who really did try to help peoples lives. What you've written here is literally a strawman of my point and I'm rather shocked to see you indulge in it.

OK, they might not "only" in it for themselves, but they are primarily in it for themselves. I don't see why I'm supposed to be so impressed by Hillary advancing a dead cause (universal healthcare in the US) and being pilloried for it. When other politicians fail to pass unpopular legislation, we aren't expected to act as if they're wonderful people for trying. For some reason, in Clinton land, we are. It's not enough to pass some good legislation - even the Bushes, Reagans and Nixons of the world do that! - we must be seen for our pure and Christ-like motives.

You didn't say it outright but it underlies this entire view that Hillary is just totally awful. She's an ambitious woman with a record that contains good and bad, but for you she is reduced only to the bad.

Not "only" bad, but on balance, bad. Her political achievements are vastly overstated, in my view. Coming at this as a non-American, I find it incredibly hard to care about a failed attempt to pass universal healthcare when weighed against things like her support for the Iraq war, intervention in Libya, and attempts to intervene in Syria. And there is something deeply distasteful about getting obscenely wealthy on the back of such mediocrity.

Her book is all about blame.

*Points out that a lot of her book blames herself.*

Those are the insincere lying bits. She's only being honest when she says things I don't like.

Context matters. If I say "The buck stops with me, and I take full responsibility. But it was also the fault of Bernie Sanders, the whole mainstream media, Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, James Comey, Russia, the debate moderators, sexism, stupid voters and Joe Biden", then it's kind of hard to take the "I take full responsibility" bit all that seriously.

Imagine a murderer has just been found guilty, and is trying to spare his life during the sentencing phase. One way to do this is to accept responsibility and show remorse. He says "I am very sorry for what I did - I killed my wife, and it will haunt me as long as I live. But the bitch had it coming". Do you think he gets off?

Yes, Hillary totally deserves the ridiculous bloviating about how aweful she is for writing a book pointing out things that hurt her campaign. Including decisions she made (Oh wait those are insincere and we have to ignore them and focus on how the perfectly true things she writes in the book are whiny and shrill.)

The book tour is a conscious attempt to bait this "ridiculous bloviating", so forgive me if I find it difficult to have much sympathy.

[The Immortal Goon]

The Clintons are Democrats.

The Democrats are an establishment party that are only better than the Republicans in that they're generally clueless incompetents instead of evil snake oil salesmen. The result is the same, however.



Hillary is irrelevant.

[Beren]

Hillary is irrelevant.

Not in this thread though.

[Stormsmith]

Hillary endured no end of abuse, much of which was leveled at her by the pharmaceutical companies. She didn't get a single payer system for all, but she did get help for kids.

For me, that's good enough. If she's washed up, people won't go and listen to her.

On the other hand, the Bushes gave Americans two financial disasters and Iraq. They probably don't want much more publicity.

They got rich, yeah, If I got offered ridiculous amounts of money for an hours speech I would do it too. If I got offered a couple million for a book about me I'd write it. I'm a human being not a saint.

You and me, both

[Beren]

However, at the end of her career she blocked progress and we have the Trump presidency now. As to the Bushes, Jeb could thank his brother for his miserable presidential bid.

[Stormsmith]

I don't think, during the time she was sparring with Mr Saunders, she could have foreseen the bashing she took from the FBI, the FSB, Wiki leaks, Putin, etc. She might have had some insight into the effects of voter suppression and gerrymandering etc. The fact she won the popular vote is all the more noteworthy.